Posted June 1, 200520 yr This is an idea that is well past due, in my opinion. It seems there are some funding issues though, so I hope they can get it together somehow. In April 2004, the city began to look into the problem of vacant/abandoned/neglected buildings and found that, in some cases, the building owners were unreachable. Councilman David Pepper introduced a motion that the city set up and implement a mandatory registration system for all owners of rental property in the city which includes current contact numbers, ownership structure, etc. He also moved to implement a system that monitors and targets problem owners and properties, where certain owners would be subject to mandatory inspections for two years on all of their properties and would be subject to a user fee for said inspections. This addresses the problems from two angles: 1) Problem properties become crime hotspots and cost the taxpayers' money by eating up an inordinate amount of city services. 2) Problem property owners are often hard to fine, and the city only goes after them one property at a time--even though most offenders have multiple problem properties. Cities such as Akron, Minneapolis and Fort Wayne already have such a program in place. http://city-egov.rcc.org/BASISCGI/BASIS/council/public/child/DDD/9104.pdf On May 25, 2005, City Manager Lemmie filed a report that stated: * Implementation would provide Buildings and Inspections (B&I) with critical data necessary for code enforcement. * A Landlord Registration Program would be of benefit to ALL city agencies with access to the software. * B&I could use "Permits Plus" software common to city enforcement agencies. However, because of budget reductions, B&I will be unable to fund the estimated $160,000 of the project. Any proposed funding for the project was eliminated from the 2005 budget. * B&I would use a contractor to develop the appropriate software, and would allow use through the Internet. This would add another $20,000 to startup costs. * The proposal to inspect all properties of problem owners would overwhelm the existing inspections staff. It is recommended that only the most egregious repeat offenders be targeted in order of magnitude and/or risk to public safety, to minimize the need for additional inspections staff. * The cost of the inspections shall be passed on to the property owner. * Unless funding can be obtained, this program is not recommended. http://city-egov.rcc.org/BASISCGI/BASIS/council/public/child/DDD/13070.pdf City records show 119 property owners with 3 or more sets of orders/violations: http://city-egov.rcc.org/BASISCGI/BASIS/council/public/child/DDD/13072.pdf
June 1, 200520 yr Good luck. These slumlords are slippery, and will find whatever loopholes they can to avoid detection, and failing that, responsibility. Cleveland has a registry, as well, but I don't think that it is generally perceived as being anything near complete. There are too many ways to slip through the cracks by using relative's names or psuedonyms or LLC's.
June 6, 200520 yr I've never understood this proposal...someone pays the tax bill, right? Someone gets checks from rentors, right? Then someone can be served with subpoenas and summonses. Or just hire a skip tracer for $30K/year to track folks down for service, then process these through the courts. Hell, serve them by publication if you have to. Then you get judgements, liens on the properties, and sell the places at auction. Alternatively, you can create a new bureaucracy, force the 98%+ of landlords who are good citizens and add value to the city, to jump through yet another hoop, while accomplishing just about nothing - anyone think the folks whom you can't contact about their building code violations will be contactable regarding their contact information? I suspect a building code violation is a much graver offence than a paperwork snafu...
September 13, 200519 yr Just an update... The Multi-Neighborhood Housing Task Force has been meeting (most recently with John Cranley) to update the City Vacant Building Maintenance License Ordinance (VBML). Basically, as it now stands, a building owner is required to keep the building watertight and in structurally safe condition. All he is required to do is pay $300 a year for an inspection and they can keep the building vacant indefinitely. The MNHTF is trying to prevent speculators from holding buildings. Their idea is to propose a fee that goes up every year that a building is vacant. This would go along with a $1000 fine for failure to comply. The unpaid fines would become a lien that the city could use to foreclose on the building. One of the main problems right now is the lack of oversight in collecting the fines under the current ordinance. It is hoped that the liens, as well as the stepped-up enforcement, will diminish the problem.
October 12, 200519 yr Okay...there will be a press conference tomorrow at 11 AM in front of the vacant house at 929 Grand Ave. in East Price Hill. This will be from the MNHTF and (I believe) Legal Aid Society of Greater Cincinnati. They're going to introduce the proposed changes to the VBML that I mentioned earlier. I doubt any of us can make it, of course. I hope the media covers it.
October 13, 200519 yr Pair want new law on vacant buildings By Howard Wilkinson and Gregory Korte Standing in front of a vacant, dilapidated house on Grand Avenue in East Price Hill Wednesday morning, council members John Cranley and Christopher Smitherman unveiled a plan they say will go a long way toward holding owners who don't maintain abandoned buildings accountable. The proposed amendment to the city's vacant buildings ordinance would permit the city to place liens on vacated properties and increase application fees for vacant building maintenance (VBM) licenses. Giving the city the ability to place liens on abandoned buildings, the council members said, would prevent the owners from "flipping'' ownership to avoid paying city fines. Read full article here: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051013/NEWS01/510130347/1056
October 14, 200519 yr I'm glad the media at least covered this. Though I drove by the house yesterday and it didn't look too vacant. The front door was open and there were 3 kids playing in the front yard!
October 19, 200519 yr If anyone is interested in the VBML strategies that council is getting behind, you can read it here. They spell it all out: http://city-egov.rcc.org/BASISCGI/BASIS/council/public/child/DDD/16640.pdf I don't think it goes far enough. They make mention of buildings vacant for ten years before the maximum penalty is reached. That is unacceptable. This group motion is now in the Neighborhoods and Public Safety Committee. EDIT: I just remembered that the Ohio Vacant Properties Forum is taking place this weekend in Columbus (I think at the Capitol Hyatt). I believe Myron Orfield is one of the speakers. It may be interesting to see what comes out of that!
October 27, 200519 yr The VBML motion passed unanimously in city council. Among other things, the VBML would: 1) Create an escalating fee sturcture starting at $900 (way too low as far as I'm concerned) that goes up every year the property is vacant. 2) Allow for a waiver if the building owner can demonstrate a rehabilitation plan. 3) Implement a $1000 fee for not applying or getting the VBML. 4) Unpaid fees/fines become a lien on the property (YAY!) You can read it in full here: http://city-egov.rcc.org/BASISCGI/BASIS/council/public/child/DDD/16640.pdf
October 27, 200519 yr This thread will highlight local deadbeats who hold at least 5 abandoned/vacant/condemned properties in the city of Cincinnati that they refuse to address. I'll put a new one out every week. Slumlord of the Week for 10/26/05-11/1/05: Aaron Etzler 4243 S. Shiloh Rd. Laura, OH 45337 (possibly also 2220 Park Ave.) This deadbeat doesn't even live locally. At least that's what I think. Some of his properties list him as living at 2220 Park Ave. in Walnut Hills, but others have him living in Laura, which is northwest of Dayton (between W. Milton and Arcanum). Wherever he lives, he is doing wrong. I doubt he even sees his properties anymore. These are the properties he has that are abandoned/vacant/condemned. All were purchased around 7/30/03-7/31/03 for pennies on the dollar, except for the two properties on the 1600 block of Pleasant, which were purchased on January 13, 2005: 1) 1701 Race St. (mixed-use, 1900) This property has been vacant since September 2003, shortly after Etzler bought it. He applied for VBML in January of 2004, did just enough to keep the city at bay in June 2004, and hasn't been heard of since. 2) 1546 Elm St. (mixed-use, 1900) This property has been vacant since February 2004, also just a few months after he bought it. 3) 1539 Pleasant St. (multi-family) You may remember that this was razed a while ago. It had been vacant since November 2004. 4) 122 W. Fifteenth St. (multi-family, 1875) Bought around the same time, it has been vacant since April 2005. 5) 1508 Pleasant St. (multi-family) Vacant since March 2005. Field inspectors have seen people entering and exiting the structure. No response from Etzler. 6) 1614 Pleasant St. (two-family, 1890) Vacant since June 2005. Has not responded to orders or applied for VBML, despite promises to do so. 7) 1616 Pleasant St. (multi-family, 1880) Also vacant since June 2005. The price paid for the properties (some as low as $1,000) and the lack of care for the properties leads me to believe that Mr. Etzler is a speculator. And he is a horrible, horrible person.
October 28, 200519 yr Sometimes I wonder if people are purchasing properties to keep the area blighted.
October 28, 200519 yr There should be a way for cities to oughtright seize properties somehow when the slumlords do this type of thing. Decree something like urban renewal, sell it off to someone else give that person X amount of time to get it good again or they just raze the property.
October 28, 200519 yr I think that the city should do something like getting a billboard to shame these slumlords.
October 28, 200519 yr Where are you getting this information? You do know why they're called "public" records, right? X...I totally agree with that sentiment. I would put a billboard on I-75 and change it weekly. In fact, I would go so far as to not allow someone with more than, say, two derelict properties to buy any more without a reasonable plan. This guy already had 5 vacant, run-down ratholes in his portfolio when he bought the two on Pleasant in January.
October 28, 200519 yr I guess as long as he's paying taxes on them, the city is reluctant to do anything about it.
October 28, 200519 yr Where are you getting this information? You do know why they're called "public" records, right? Yes, but where are these public records? Are they online? Do they actually say how long the building has been vacant? If I wanted to find this information, where would I go, not that I do.
October 28, 200519 yr Good idea, Grass. Slumlording is such a strange hobby. I never understood it. For that matter, why do people like to collect rusty, leaky cars & park them up & down the street ? Anyway, I gathered the links to the pictures of these properties at Dusty's website. (another weird hobby, I guess) 1701 Race http://64.56.97.146/RoverDocuments/20031013AD080000JPG_large_000_B496BFBA14AA475287E57AFD36ACF4CB_V_0.JPG 1546 Elm http://64.56.97.146/RoverDocuments/V0002015V0006161JPG_large_000_B496BFBA14AA475287E57AFD36ACF4CB_V_0.JPG 1539 Pleasant http://64.56.97.146/RoverDocuments/20030720OK075705JPG_large_000_B496BFBA14AA475287E57AFD36ACF4CB_V_0.JPG 1508 Pleasant http://64.56.97.146/RoverDocuments/20030720OK080055JPG_large_000_B496BFBA14AA475287E57AFD36ACF4CB_V_0.JPG 1614 Pleasant http://64.56.97.146/RoverDocuments/20031013AD081222JPG_large_000_B496BFBA14AA475287E57AFD36ACF4CB_V_0.JPG 122 W 15th http://64.56.97.146/RoverDocuments/20030720OK092704JPG_med_000_B496BFBA14AA475287E57AFD36ACF4CB_V_0.JPG
October 28, 200519 yr One thing we can all do is write these people letters. Believe it or not some of these people have forgotten about these buildings. Grasscat, keep the thread going and lets put people like this guy and Larry Rhodes on the list and tell them what we think of what they are doing.
October 28, 200519 yr Absolutely. A great idea! I'll write something up and if you guys want to sign off on it you can do so. I'm thinking something like a form letter.
October 29, 200519 yr if you want to include something about the actual code violations here is a link http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/city/downloads/city_pdf10485.pdf
October 29, 200519 yr ^I think this is a great idea guys. I would copy the city on any letters sent. That way they have an idea of what's going on and know that you've brought your complaint in a reasonable manner. I look forward to your letter Grasscat.
October 31, 200519 yr I think 2220 Park Avenue is the offices of Eden Park Realty. Maybe someone could ask Karen Dominey who Aaron is and what his plans are for his blighted buildings. I did notice some minor work being done on some of these buildings a few years ago right after he purchased them, but no work has been done for two years or so, and it appears that he either ran out of money or something.
October 31, 200519 yr Good idea, Grass. Slumlording is such a strange hobby. I never understood it. For that matter, why do people like to collect rusty, leaky cars & park them up & down the street ? Anyway, I gathered the links to the pictures of these properties at Dusty's website. (another weird hobby, I guess) 1701 Race http://64.56.97.146/RoverDocuments/20031013AD080000JPG_large_000_B496BFBA14AA475287E57AFD36ACF4CB_V_0.JPG 1546 Elm http://64.56.97.146/RoverDocuments/V0002015V0006161JPG_large_000_B496BFBA14AA475287E57AFD36ACF4CB_V_0.JPG 1539 Pleasant http://64.56.97.146/RoverDocuments/20030720OK075705JPG_large_000_B496BFBA14AA475287E57AFD36ACF4CB_V_0.JPG 1508 Pleasant http://64.56.97.146/RoverDocuments/20030720OK080055JPG_large_000_B496BFBA14AA475287E57AFD36ACF4CB_V_0.JPG 1614 Pleasant http://64.56.97.146/RoverDocuments/20031013AD081222JPG_large_000_B496BFBA14AA475287E57AFD36ACF4CB_V_0.JPG 122 W 15th http://64.56.97.146/RoverDocuments/20030720OK092704JPG_med_000_B496BFBA14AA475287E57AFD36ACF4CB_V_0.JPG Quimbob, none of these links are working. If they are small enough, could you post them?
October 31, 200519 yr ^ moonloop, you can just put in "Etzler Aaron" as an owner search on the auditor's site and all of those properties will come up. Also, I haven't been able to write anything up like I said I would. I just don't have the time. Is it possible for someone else to pick up the ball and run with it?
November 1, 200519 yr I googled Mr. Etzler and the only real info I could find was on the City of Cincinnati website... CONTIONAL USE APPROVAL, 1614-1616 PLEASANT STREET, OVER-THE-RHINE HISTORIC DISTRICT Owner/developer Aaron Etzler submitted an application to establish residential use on the first floor of the buildings at 1614-1616 Pleasant Street, within the Over-the-Rhine Historic District. The B-4 zoning requires conditional use approval to permit the residential use on the first floor. Although no construction work is proposed at this time, the applicant intends to rehabilitate these two buildings into one single-family residence. BOARD ACTION The Board voted unanimously (motion by Raser, second by Kreider) to take the following actions: 1. Find that the rehabilitation of these buildings will remove a blighting influence from the community and will further the aims of historic preservation in the district; 2. Find that the adjacent uses and conditions would not be injurious to the health, safetyor morals of the occupants of the proposed dwelling units; 3. Find that such relief from the literal implication of the Zoning Code: a. Is necessary and appropriate in the interest of historic conservation so as not to adversely affect the historic architectural or aesthetic integrity of the district; and c. Will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to the property in the district or vicinity where the property is located; and 4. Approve the establishment of a residential use on the first floor of these buildings at 1614-1616 Pleasant Street in the Over-the-Rhine Historic District as a conditional use 1539 PLEASANT ST 45210 AARON ETZLER $11,500 2005P07611 09/23/2005 Wrecking Combo Permit WRECK MUTIL FAM RESD BLDG 26 W 13TH ST 45210 AARON ETZLER $14,000 2004P02206 03/26/2004 Building Combo SCAN DRYWALL REPAIR/REMOVE NON-STRUCTURAL WALLS 1ST, 2ND, & 3RD FL 504 E 12TH ST 45210 AARON ETZLER $4,000 2005P02251 02/24/2005 Building Combo SCAN REMODEL 1ST FLOOR PER PLANS
November 1, 200519 yr Didn't Citibeat used to have a series like this? Maybe we should send the thread to them and ask them to revive the series...maybe Grasscat could free-lance it for them!
November 1, 200519 yr ^ Yeah, CityBeat used to have "Blight of the Week". Then they stopped running it for some reason, so I sent them an e-mail. They never replied.
November 3, 200519 yr I'll repeat this and see if there are any takers: Also, I haven't been able to write anything up like I said I would. I just don't have the time. Is it possible for someone else to pick up the ball and run with it? Before I get along to the next one, I'd like to say that I'm surprised there aren't as many large landholders as I thought there would be, especially in OTR and the West End. In fact, most of the major landholders so far seem to be these groups, with varying degrees of plans and successes: 1) ReSTOC 2) The City 3) OTR Holdings (3CDC) 4) CMHA 5) Community Land Cooperative of Cincinnati 6) Miami Purchase Preservation Fund 7) New Prospect Baptist Church Now... Slumlord of the Week for 11/2/05-11/8/05: Leo D'Souza 325 Lafayette Ave. Cincinnati, OH 45220-1122 Mr. D'Souza does not win for holding a bunch of vacant properties, though he does own three. He wins for the sheer number of developable lots that are for the most part untended. And he wins for the actual homes he owns that have tenants, which are in such poor condition that his collection of money from these people is unconscionable. Here are the vacant properties: 1) 71 Clifton Ave. (multi-family, 1870s) Bought in 1996, vacant since the end of 2004. Promised to have VBML by February 2005, but has not been heard from since. In middle of area of redevelopment. 2) 2548 Beekman St. (single-family, 1890) Bought in 1983, vacant since the end of 2004. Building unsecured. Just horrible. 3) 1658 Carll St. (single-family, 1915) Bought in 1989, vacant since March 2002. No repairs or improvements made. Attempted porch. Most of the following vacant lots have been held since the early-to-mid 1990s, though a few were picked up in the 1980s and a couple around 2000-2001. Most were picked up on the cheap: 1) 2726 Hoff Ave. (East End) 2) 1739 Sycamore St. (Mt. Auburn) 3-5) 141, 143 and 147 Winkler St. (Mt. Auburn) 6) Un-numbered lot on Rice St. (Mt. Auburn) 7) 307 Donahue St. (Corryville) 8-9) 67 and 69 Clifton Ave. (OTR) 10) 1711 Frintz St. (OTR) 11) 2505 Halstead St. (Fairview) 12) 1035 Burton Ave. (Avondale) 13-15) 3814, 3818 and 3820 Cass Ave. (South Cumminsville) 16) 3819 Borden St. (South Cumminsville) 17) 1853 Baltimore Ave. (North Fairmount) 18-19) 2579 and 2626 Liddell St. (North Fairmount) 20-21) 1656 and 1715 Carll St. (North Fairmount) 22-23) 2655 and 2659 Linden St. (South Fairmount) 24-25) 1887 and 1900 Montrose St. (South Fairmount) 26-27) 1891 and 1899 Horton St. (South Fairmount) 28) 1731 Harrison Ave. (South Fairmount) 29) 2675 Brestel Rd. (North Fairmount) 30-31) 3632 and 3650 Fyffe Ave. (East Westwood) 32) 5639 Glenview Ave. (College Hill/Mt. Airy) He also holds these lots which really aren't ripe for development due to isolation, streets never built, etc.: 1) 6120 Glade Ave. (Mt. Washington) 2) 2706 Keck St. (East End) 3) 731 E. Mitchell Ave. (North Avondale) 4) 2123 Wayland Ave. (South Fairmount) 5) 2061 Orange Ave. (South Fairmount) 6-9) 331, 335, 339 and 345 Nonpareil St. (East Price Hill) 10-13) Lots on inaccessable Sterling Ave. (Millvale) 14) Isolated lot off of Wyoming Ave. (Price Hill) 15-18) 2241, 2245, 2251 and 2253 Alexander St. (South Fairmount) 19) 2127 Randall Ave. (South Fairmount) 20) 2109 Yoast Ave. (North Fairmount) 21-25) 3081, 3091, 3093, 3095 and 3097 Percy Ave. (Westwood) 26) 3620 Walls St. (Avondale) 27) 3.5 acres south of I-71 just east of Kennedy Rd., along interstate He also has a few functioning properties. All look like they could be condemned at any time: 1) 1857 Baltimore Ave. (two-family, 1915) 2) 1752 Carll St. (single-family, 1895) 3) 3530 Vine St. (single-family, 1869) 4) 3570 Vine St. (two-family, 1928)
November 3, 200519 yr If you identify any vacant properties that are not secured (lower level boreded up) please post.
November 4, 200519 yr 2505 Halstead HA I used to live on Halstead in the 80's and complained to the city about that property's upkeep regularly. Unfortunately, I don't think it is large enough to build on. Unless one of the neighbors buys it, it will likely remain "dead" land. Mark
November 5, 200519 yr ^ It's pretty small. The house on the similarly-sized site behind it (on Addison) is only 640 square feet per level and it pretty much fills up the lot.
November 5, 200519 yr another tool to use in the letter is crime stats in front of the particular address. If you follow this link http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/police/pages/-5200-/ and download the excel file, turn on a filter and you can look at individual addresses.
November 5, 200519 yr This is the city's vesion of a complaint letter. Lets just modify this and start sending them out. Dear Neighbor: Keeping our community safe and clean is a responsibility we all must share. This includes the duty of all community members to maintain their property and to comply with the established laws and ordinances of the City of Cincinnati. These laws and ordinances are established for our safety and compliance with them will ensure that we can maintain a high quality of life for our entire community. It has come to our attention that the following condition(s) exists on your property which affects the quality of life of our community and appears to be in violation of an established ordinance(s) of the City of Cincinnati: We would appreciate if you would act immediately to correct this condition. A notification of this condition is being forwarded to the appropriate city department for follow-up action, should this condition not be corrected. This letter does not immune you from receiving a citation if your property is investigated and code violations are found. If you require information or assistance regarding this matter, you can contact (community council representative) or the appropriate city department by calling 591-6000. Please help keep Cincinnati a first-class city by correcting these conditions and thus improve the quality of life for the entire community. Your Concerned Neighbor,
November 5, 200519 yr Under the line "the following problems have come to our attention" A reference Fire Codes Vacant Buildings Vacant and Unsecured Buildings (OFC F105) Accumulated Waste and Waste Receptacles (CFPC 1219-5 & OFC FM-318.1) General Maintenance (CFPC 1201-21) Building Codes CBC Section: 1117-51.1, Maintenance of Accessory and Appurtenant Structures: CBC Section: 1117-47.1, Maintenance of Foundations, Floors, Roofs and Exterior Walls: CBC Section: 1117-45.1, General Maintenance and Repair: CBC Section: 1117-45.2, Supplied Fixtures and Equipment: I.E. downspouts or gutter and if we do not get a favorable responce to the letter, step 2 Complaints can be filed by calling the City’s Customer Service Call Center at 591-6000 or through the website at [email protected] and identifying the conditions which are in violation of the various codes, such as high weeds and grass, excessive litter on private property or the dilapidated condition of a house. Complaints can only be accepted on the conditions which can be seen from the public areas, or which the complainant can legally provide access to view. Responsible departments: Buildings & Inspections, Health and Public Services Step 3. If all else fails send an email to this address, Eric Otto is one of the building inspectors for OTR [email protected]
November 10, 200519 yr I changed the criteria a bit an lowered it from five vacant/abandoned properties to three. Three is bad enough, plus it takes less time to find someone with three and, therefore, less work for me. ;) The worst part about this next guy is that he apparently lives right up the street from his properties, yet he does nothing about them. (Van Lear is off of Ohio near Bellevue Hill Park.) Slumlord of the Week for 11/9/05-11/15/05: Ralph Moeckel 2120 Van Lear St. Cincinnati, OH 45210 1) 2035 Vine St. (mixed-use, 1880s) Owned since 1976 and vacant since October 2003. Vacant and secure as of September. Photos of crumbling exterior taken and a criminal case is being launched. 2) 2107 Vine St. (single-family, 1865) Owned since 1986 and vacant since June 2005. Vacant and secure mid-October. No plans to rehab, demolish, anything. 3) 2012 Ohio Ave. (single-family, 1900) Owned since 1977 and also vacant since June 2005. In October, Moeckel returned a call to B&I asking "what they don't like about his building". Have you even bothered to visit your crumbling buildings, Ralph?
November 10, 200519 yr Once, years ago, when I was exploring OTR on foot often, I happened to turn down Van Lear, which quickly disintigrates into woods on the hillside. Immediately, a couple of viscious dogs came at me, and some grouchy old man sitting on his decrepit porch told me to get the hell off his property. (I was technically in the street). Later when talking to a building inspector, he told me that I had met Mr. Moeckel. He sits on his porch with a gun in his lap protecting his deteriorating fiefdom. He and his brother own quite a few contiguous parcels on the hillside.
November 10, 200519 yr Well who is going to send out the first letter? If no other takers, I'll do it :evil:
November 11, 200519 yr Michael, I am willing to "sign" whatever letter you come up with. I just haven't had the time to come up with one and it would be great if you wanted to put it together. I'm sure a lot of us are on board. Jimmy Skinner...I can totally see that. A street that disintegrates into a cul-de-sac next to woods. Man who sits on a chair on the porch smoking three packs a day. Some beer. Many beers. A shotgun. Probably thinks he's King of the World. Hilarious!
November 16, 200519 yr Slumlord of the Week for 11/16/05-11/22/05: Steven J. Pavelish 2121 Renner Pl. Cincinnati, OH 45214 Pavelish owns the following derelict properties: 1) 183 Zier Pl., OTR (single-family, 1874) and 187 Zier Pl., OTR (single-family, 1895) 09/04: Bought property 06/05: Condemned 06/05: Pavelish phoned telling B&I "Please don't stick anything on my buildings." 10/05: Invited Pavelish to meet to discuss plans for 183 and 187 Zier 10/05: B&I met Pavelish on site, and he could produce no plans for saving the buildings 10/05: Criminal charges prepared 11/05: Time extended 30 days before criminal charges filed 2) 2746 River Rd., Sedamsville (single-family, 1875) and 2748 River Rd., Sedamsville (single-family, 1875) 02/83: Bought property 10/04: Building condemned due to heavy fire damage to structural components 11/04: Notice posted 02/05: No sign of compliance 02/05: VBML inspection 03/05: VBML orders received. Pavelish claimed to have removed front porch and was starting to repair front siding and paint 04/05: Work progressing 05/05: VBML re-inspection with work actually progressing, but property still dangerous 08/05: VBML re-inspection, work still progressing (In other words, we shall see....) 3) 2320 Glenway Ave., Lower Price Hill (two-family, 1883) Property purchased in the 1990s 07/04: Vacant and open to trespassers 08/04: Pavelish agrees to barricade the building 10/04: Vacant and secure 01/05: Building vacant and open, city to barricade 4) 313 Purcell Ave., East Price Hill (two-family, 1927) Property purchased in the 1970s 04/04: Building vacant 04/04: Orders filed and received 05/04: No visible progress 03/05: Property value drops 50% on new valuations 08/05: No progress, no VBML compliance 09/05: B&I calls Pavelish and tells him that he'll need a VBML or criminal charges will be pursued, Pavelish says he'll pick one up within a week 09/05: VBML application purchased 10/05: VBML applied for (He has bought himself more time to do little more than board up doors and windows, leaving what could be a pretty nice house vacant for another year.) 5) Pavelish also holds the following vacant lots on Renner St. in Mohawk, and has had many of them for more than 10 years with no plans to do anything but hope that they appreciate in value. 228, 232, 234, 236, 263, 269, 271, 282, 283, 286, 287, 288, 301, 305, 311, 313, 315, 317, 405, 411
November 17, 200519 yr I heard something on NPR the other day, just caught the end of the segment about how in Chicago street gangs are getting into real estate. The gang buys properties and use vacant buildings as safehouses for drugs, guns, prostituion and to control turf. The latin Kings was the gang that was mentioned. I bet this kind of this kind of stuff goes on here too.
January 23, 200619 yr A win for Mulberry St! Larry Rhodes was just sent to jail for 3 days for his buildings on Mulberry that are falling down. His next hearing is on 2/27 at which time if his buildings do not get a VBML he goes to jail for 1 year. This has been 17 years in the coming. And for all of those who read this that think we are picking on the little guy who can't afford to fix his buildings, Larry has an estimated net worth of 40 million and lives in a sizeable home in Hyde Park.
January 23, 200619 yr It was more than just the building Dept. We had almost 10 residents who showed support against Larry, Jeff Brandt is pursuing him in Civil Court (Mulberry Resident also) so it took everyone and a lot of patience.
January 23, 200619 yr It was more than just the building Dept. We had almost 10 residents who showed support against Larry, Jeff Brandt is pursuing him in Civil Court (Mulberry Resident also) so it took everyone and a lot of patience. Wow that is good work. A guy worth $40 million and still refuses to do anything with his properties. Terrible. Though, it shouldn't take 17 years. I'm going look up his properties out of curiosity.
January 23, 200619 yr 146,148 and 95 Mulberry St. and one on Main however I do not know the address right off hand.
Create an account or sign in to comment